Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious.

Why Obama’s ‘Julia’ campaign will be a success

On Thursday, Barack Obama’s re-election campaign released an advertising campaign titled “The Life of Julia,” in which 12 snapshots of a fictional woman’s life are used to demonstrate how Obama’s policies would help her, and how Mitt Romney’s policies would hurt her.

At age 3, “Julia” enrolls in Head Start, which Obama has expanded but Romney wants to scale back. At age 18, she qualifies for up to $10,000 under Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit, which Romney wants to let expire. As she ages, she takes advantage of Obama’s preferred health care plan, capped student loan payments, free birth control and medical screenings, government business loans and welfare programs — all things that Obama claims Romney either wants to reduce or eliminate.

In short, Julia is an irresponsible woman dependent upon an increasingly large nanny state, and how dare anybody prevent her from getting the money and services she thinks she deserves. Obama’s campaign messaging, then, celebrates the entitlement society the president is helping to foment. Sadly, that message may be enough to win him the support he needs.

Consider a recent story out of Valencia College in Florida. Professor Jack Chambless asked his students to write an essay about what the “American Dream” meant to them. Students were asked to write the essay on the spot to better capture their initial and sincere impressions, and had about 10 minutes to write. The results were sobering.

According to Chambless, over 80% of the class believed that the “American Dream” entailed the government providing things for them to live comfortably, such as free tuition and health care, down payment assistance on a home, money for retirement and free vacations. Students also thought that the American Dream meant that the government should “give them a job.”

Whether it’s a fictional Julia or a very real John, Jenny, Jake or any number of other voters who embrace this entitlement mentality, the nanny state Obama is championing has become wildly popular. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 48.5% of Americans live in a household that receives some form of government aid. The government which Obama currently presides over has become, as the French economist Frédéric Bastiat once prophetically stated, “the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Indeed, the popularity of government services and benefits has radically transformed this nation. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “The citizen of the United States is taught from his earliest infancy to rely on his own exertions in order to resist the evils and difficulties of life; he looks upon social authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety and he only claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without it.” That America is no more. As Obama’s advertising campaign demonstrates, a large segment of society now looks upon social authority not with an eye of mistrust, but with an open, expectant hand. No longer are children taught to rely upon their own exertions, but as the example of 3-year-old Julia shows, they are taught to praise and participate in government programs allegedly designed to help them succeed.

In the end, the “Julia” campaign amounts to little more than propaganda, since a few small snapshots of a person’s life can’t tell an accurate story of the government’s impact on that person’s life.

The campaign points out how Julia benefits from various government services, but notably fails to mention the other side of the story. Of course, somebody has to pay for those benefits; the nanny state, as Bastiat also said, “is not a breast that fills itself with milk.” In other words, the money has to come from somewhere.

Thus we might consider the fictional “Sam” who, to fund the services Julia enjoys while also providing for his own family, must work two jobs, thereby missing quality family time and otherwise enjoying his life. Perhaps Sam loses one of those jobs because increasing government regulations has led his former employer to cut costs, and he was one of the casualties. Maybe Sam himself is compelled to depend on government handouts because Obama’s economic policies have helped foster an environment in which it is difficult for Sam to succeed on his own. Both Julia and Sam then receive what must be taken from an ever-decreasing pool of people forced to fund the programs championed in Obama’s campaign.

If Chambless’ students are at all indicative of a significant segment of the electorate, the “Julia” campaign will ultimately be a success. One student’s essay stated that “As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others.” We’re to believe, of course, that Obama and those who champion the nanny state do care about others.

Therein lies the fatal conceit. While they may care about “Julia,” they clearly don’t care about “Sam.”

68 Responses to “Why Obama’s ‘Julia’ campaign will be a success”

If we did not live in a dysfunctional class society then I might agree with you but we don’t and so I don’t. I hope you educate yourself on the aspects of our dysfunctional societies and oppression. Since you are a white male and this is a white male dominated society you have probably never experienced oppression yourself and so you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Thank God and Goodness for men like Barack Obama who have educated themselves and maintained their humanity towards others. Who have a thorough understanding of what is needed to maintain a civil society. You can keep moving in the direction you are going but many, many societies have collapsed under the same type of oppressive and self serving thinking which you espouse. I pray that you are saved from yourself.

Religious organizations in general benefit from the government by being subsidized, via tax breaks. That seems like an entitlement program. Not to single out the LDS church by any means.http://taxthechurches.org/

Another one is encouraging child birth by giving tax breaks for children, basically subsidizing people to have more children at others expense. Probably a huge issue for anyone who has large families. It might seem cruel, but why should anyone have to help someone else have children? And also to additionally help support these extra subsidized children afterwards with other entitlement programs?

You are all for the free market and pulling owns own weight when it comes to your own wallet, but look the other way when you benefit.

Do “you” know what collectivism is? Do you know what chauvinism is? Are you aware that chauvinism can be female as well as male?

I am an older boomer woman. Yes, I’m white, but–

My “Sam” had to work so hard that he seldom saw our children, and I worked my fingers to the bone so that I could be home with our children, several of whom are special needs and needed one-on-one care.

There may or may not have been “government” programs available to help our children. We actually tried once or twice to get some help and were not able to, and it wasn’t because we had too much money; it was some other “crack” through which we or our child fell. *I* would never trust Obama or any president to come up with a “program” that would help a woman stay home with a special needs child.

The idea that the government (or any president) is more humane than random individual human beings is ludicrous.

Yes, I realize that there are abusive husbands and fathers (there are also abusive wives and mothers, even children), etc. It’s not always easy to be male or even “white male”. Have you ever met a man who was horrifically abused by his mother? I have. Several.

You are generalizing and collectivizing to the point where your arguments are not even logical.

There are many kinds of abuse. One of those abuses is a government taking from some people to give to others.

I realize that our society is very broken; I agree heartily with you about that. But the idea that any president (Obama or any other) is benign and benevolent is laughable. He is not doing what he is doing out of humanity, even if he or his program “sounds” more “humane”, or he would have stopped those horrible overseas wars, and our returning (and still active) veterans (men and women) would not be killing themselves off like flies, and there wouldn’t be entire communities of children who are “brown” in Iraq who are sick and weak and dying–

True capitalism has never worked in our society, so it can’t truly be judged. LDS pioneers chose to reject Zion, and not just the men–

The only way that things will ever be fair is in a world where Zion is not rejected. No government can ever succeed without Zion. Communism/socialism are failed systems. But in the meantime what *we* have now is not working.

I guess you’d better pray for me, too; pray for my old, tired heart, if you think it is hard for believing as I do–

but I’m much closer to the end of my life than to the middle, and I am white and a woman and not in good health, and I simply don’t see things the way you do. And I’m well-educated, too.

I work very hard, personally, along with my husband, who probably works even harder (his health is better) to remain independent. It is VERY important to us to be independent. We don’t want anyone to take care of us. We live modestly in a very small home, and we manage a huge garden and cook all of our food “from scratch”; we live simply. I could say more, but I’ve said too much already–

You haven’t seen the entire world, and you’re not looking at the whole picture.

So a society that wants its people to be healthy, educated and successful is a “nanny state”. A society that puts everything into the private sector so that necessary goods and services are only available to those who can afford them is a “free society”. A society that allows people to go hungry, stay dumb, and suffer and die from lack of medical care is a moral utopia. No wonder smart college students don’t buy this.

Let’s talk about the ultimate nanny state – Sweden. Does anyone on this forum think that if in the next election the democrats took over 100% of the house, senate and presidency that we would become more socialized than Sweden currently is right now?

Good one Tron! Blaine, ever read the part that says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” I know so-called conservatives don’t really believe the government should provide for the general welfare of the people, but that’s certainly Constitutional.

We have re-defined Defense to mean maintain a standing army in over 100 foreign nations in order to secure the blessings of other people’s resources for ourselves. We don’t even have to redefine general welfare since most of the programs people like Julia really want are already obviously included in the term.

Oh, and by the way, Jimz, I appreciate what you have to say. I don’t think there should be tax exemptions for churches or tax benefits for people having children (or not having them); when family or church are subsidized by governments, both suffer.

So I believe. I appreciate your concern with the proper definitions of words. I enjoy reading what you have to say.

Connor says, “Julia is an irresponsible woman.” Let’s say this is true. And she doesn’t use protection and gets pregnant. Under the libertarian system she would have to go to the emergency room because she has no insurance, so she’s never visited a doctor until delivery. The lowest costs I can find for a normal delivery is $8000. She can’t pay it, so all of us with insurance have to pay the tab. Now let’s see how much that irresponsible birth control would have cost. At $15 a month if she is on it from 18 years old to 40 years old will cost us a total of $3960.

Tron, your reasoning would also suggest that parents should just assume their children are going to make serious mistakes and be prepared for those mistakes, rather than trusting that their children will make wise choices.

When your first daughter enters puberty, buy maternity insurance (if you don’t believe in abortion), or give her birth control (not a healthy drug, by the way) pill when she becomes an adolescent, assuming she is going to be promiscuous. Why take the chance of believing that she:

1–might not want the health risks of using birth control
2–might not want the health and emotional and spiritual risks of being promiscuous–

It’s more important to save money than to trust your daughter (or teach her from the time of her earliest infancy that she is too precious to engage in sad behaviors)–
After all, remember how much it will cost to raise grandchildren, when she decides to bring them home after burning out–

This is not logic. Deciding that everyone around you is going to do foolish things and preparing to save yourself money isn’t logical.

Hoping that others will learn to make wise choices and determining that you are not going to contribute to foolish choices is, perhaps, a more Christlike approach.

Having said that, I have to wonder. Do you have adolescent children?

Most of the pro-Obama comments on here are decidedly anti-alternatives of any kind. No alternative health. No alternative education. No alternative-accepted by sitcoms social behavior–

Eating wisely and not using drugs (even prescription), while making certain that the dangerous drug users are put into prison–and not seeing medical doctors (who distribute drugs, often dangerous ones) is alternative.

Teaching, even raising, children at home, has become alternative.

Teaching young people that it is wise to remain chaste is an alternative.

These alternatives are ignored by the “social systems” that are being discussed on here.

For those who are “stuck” in the left/right, Democrat/Republican paradigm–

Why hasn’t Obama ended the wars?
Why are the prison populations increasing, since he is such a “humane” president?

Why was nothing said on a national level when, using presidential executive orders approved by (perhaps introduced by) Obama, an American teenager of middle eastern descent who was completely innocent was killed in the middle east–

There are many unanswered questions.

It’s a matter of what is right and what is wrong at some point. And it’s not right for me to have to pay for someone else’s birth control.

Perhaps the young woman should find a midwife to deliver her baby; skip the emergency room. Perhaps she can find a friend to help her deliver the baby. The chances are the baby will be just as healthy as a hospital-born baby, according to statistics about high infant mortality in the U.S.

Why must every solution be found “inside the box”–

Liberty has, obviously, become very unpopular and is obviously not inside that box.

I heard a good economist make the statement that rich people and poor people both want the same thing: they want the government to give them all the things they want and they don’t want to pay for it. Many in the US are now suffering the effects of an economic downturn but the wealthiest are getting even richer because they have succeeded in getting the government to do their bidding and to reduce what they pay as well. They got de-regulation and privatization and enormous increases in spending in areas that benefit them (military, “national security”, prescription drugs, prisons, etc.) and shifted a lot of their tax burden to the middle and lower classes in the bargain.

Now when the rest of us start asking for what we want and asking that they pay a bit more, they start yelling “class warfare”.

Charles, I can agree with you on one level. The problem is that I, a poor person, a bona fide poor person, do not want welfare. I do want Zion. But I don’t believe that democrats or republicans care about Zion. I don’t believe they care about poor people. So I don’t want their handouts.
I don’t want them to tell me how to live my life. And whenever a benefit is given, freedom is lost.
As for the rich, well, I don’t envy them. To be honest, I feel sorry for them. I am not sure why, but I do.
It has been interesting to live life as a poor person. Truly. Not completely impoverished; I did manage to go to college, but compared to some I know (yes, in the church, people I go to church with) we are very poor indeed. We make, perhaps 10% of what they make.
They are very shallow people. They don’t really have interesting lives. I am not sure they have learned anything from being alive. They don’t seem to enjoy all their money that much. So, I feel sorry for them–
Back to politics and welfare–
The problem, however, is that the entire system has become corrupt. The system needs to change. But more welfare is not the answer.
This problem is bigger than republicans and democrats; it goes deeper and uglier than that.

Well, outside, you are certainly entitled to your desire for Zion, however you define it. However, you are not entitled to force other to accept your beliefs nor to assume that because something doesn’t appeal to you personally, it is not an answer to the problem.

I would agree that the system is the problem, but short of some supernatural intervention,how do we change the system?

I didn’t realize that the fact that I’m a democrat means I’m not allowed to teach my daughter (whom I do have and is five years old) that she should wait ’til marriage to have sex.

Also, the teenage pregnancy in the USA is 34 per 1000. In Sweden it’s less than 10 per 1000. That evil nanny state.

@rob

So Sweden has a budget surplus, lower unemployment than us, and health care that costs less than half of what we are paying. And as for that SCARY inflation rate – after 57 years of socialized medicine, the inflation rate in Sweden is 1.5%. Oh no! Hide the children.

@TRON- where on earth are you getting your delivery cost stats from? I’m going to the best hospital in the area and the total cost for all maternity care and a natural delivery is about $2500, and they told me this is pretty standard across the nation…

On another note- all you Sweden praising people- have you ever been there? There is a cost to the government “solving” so many of your problems. My mom lived there for quite some time and even back in the 70’s it was pretty messed up. All her friends there tell her it has only gotten worse. Statistics don’t always tell the full picture.

Liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility are far more important to me than ensuring that I have everything I could ever want. My husband and I could qualify to be on WIC right now with my pregnancy, and to be honest my increased nutritional needs have put quite a strain on our budget. BUT instead of relying on the government to give me extra money for food I just budget a little harder and make better decisions about what we buy. We get fewer frills, planted a garden, and eat out less. I make wiser decisions about the types of foods that I get and make sure I can get multiple uses out of everything. It’s not easy- and I know several people who make more than us that are on WIC because they don’t want to *have* to give up their petty comforts. Is our way a lot of work and sacrifice? Absolutely. Is it worth it? Most definitely.

Get some character people- and stop taking money from us to pay for what you refuse to take responsibility over. My husband loses 1/3 of every paycheck to pay for your foolishness. How is this fair to us???

To qualify for WIC and assuming you have no kids, you would have to jointly make less than $35,316.50 a year. Assuming there are only two of you right now and that you earn $35,316 and do not own a house, your deduction should be $11,900. This puts your maximum taxable income at $23,416 which puts you in the 15% tax bracket. To be at 33% you would need to make $223,900 a year. If you’re paying 1/3 of your income in taxes, you’re doing your taxes very, very wrong. (What is taken out of your paycheck is NOT the taxes you pay. Most lower-income Americans receive a tax refund, which is taxes you didn’t owe.)

Tron, forgive me if I offended, but I don’t think I said that. I am an old woman. I have grandchildren the age of your daughter, and it does matter how old your children are, because your perspective will change as you grow older. All said with kindness, but experience.
I am sure you are teaching your daughter the correct principles.
You see–
This isn’t about Democrats and Republicans, but nobody seems to want to respond to that–:)
Your being a Democrat is certainly not an offense to me; I am neither Democrat nor Republican, and I have no respect for one over the other.
I am definitely not a “typical” Mormon Republican; I have been anti-war for years, and the only Mormons who dared be anti-war for many years were Democrats. I thought highly of the several Democratic apostles (Hugh B. Brown and Elder Faust being two; I believe President McKay was also a Democrat)–
So–
What *I* observe among people who do side with parties is that those on the so-called “right” want to force people to be moral.
Those on the so-called “left” want to make sure that those who choose immorality have a safety net to soften the blow.
I don’t believe either of those approaches is in harmony with the gospel as I read it in the Book of Mormon.
It may be the practice of latter day saints (including church leaders) to believe that morality must be legislated–and it may be the practice of some who call themselves “liberals” (another fuzzy term) to believe in finding a way to pay for the mistakes that others make–

but as true latter-day saints we should neither be forcing people to be good or expecting them to be bad.
Both are just flawed ways of thinking.
Yes, people will make mistakes, but if *we* expect people to be better, often they will.

As LDS, I am often saddened to see how much my fellow saints want to ‘protect’ everyone by legislating away every possible ‘sin’–
while not taking the time to TEACH a better way–
And the more “liberal” saints want to make sure to provide a softened consequence for those who make mistakes.
I do believe our society is dead wrong; I believe that everything is “off”.
I like Ron Paul, and I support him, but even he cannot solve this mess. It will take people, many of them, to wake up and see the mess.

I am one of those who takes the Book of Mormon very literally in believing that much of the mess isn’t due to your neighbor and mine (whether rich or poor) but due to a massive corruption that has taken place in the financial systems of the world, managed by shadows–

People on both sides of the political aisles laugh at me for believing that, but when I read about Gadiantons, to me, they are not drug lords, but nice-looking bankers–
bankers most of us don’t know–
they are there; what has happened to this country proves that they are working behind the scenes to rob all of us–

So . . . I think it is important for us to ‘come together’ and not make enemies of each other. That is what the “real” enemy wants–

outside, if you (and those who agree with you) remove the government aid that is essential to the well being of others (the general welfare) because it conflicts with your beliefs or preferences, then that would be a problem. If you simply refuse to accept available government assistance when you qualify for it, that’s your decision and insofar as it only affects you, it’s not anyone else’s business.

However, if your family is entitled to food stamps or Medicaid or some other form of assistance and it would help your children stay healthier than they would otherwise, then you ought to swallow your pride and accept the help (in my opinion).

@Charles… I’m not trying to be argumentative; just trying to point out an important Constitutional principle (more for the benefit of other people who may be reading this). But, you’ve referred to the Constitutional principle of “general welfare” a couple times. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

In short, “general welfare” is something done for the benefit of all the citizens (rich & poor… all people). It is not the same as “being available” to all citizens [when certain conditions are met].

“General Welfare” as used in the Constitution is synonymous to “for the benefit of all”, and was not intended (or even remotely desired to intend) to be interpreted as “alms or charity generally available to those who find themselves wanting”

Because it benefits her to be able to be on her parents’ health insurance (that they pay for) until she’s 26?

Because she would take advantage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act to guarantee that she has a right to equal pay for equal work? (Again – she has to WORK to take advantage of Lilly Ledbetter).

Because she might want to take out, and then pay for, a small business loan?

Because she might want to receive Social Security payments upon retirement, after decades of paying into the system?

You have an interesting view of “irresponsible.” How is any of that irresponsible? How does it make one “dependent” upon the state to have an avenue to pursue equal pay for equal work in court? Or to want to receive Social Security after PAYING FOR Social Security? How does it in any way damage your hypothetical “Sam”?

If you want to criticize President Obama’s policies, or the way his administration characterizes those policies, you’d do well to leave the poor strawmen out of it. They take enough abuse these days.

Because being on her parent’s health insurance long after becoming an adult is dependence, brought about by a mandate from the government, imposing a burden on a private insurance company that otherwise would likely not exist.

Because she relies on the government to help ensure that she gets “equal” pay, rather than working on her own merits with those who value her work for a reasonable price with which she agrees.

Because she relies on the government for a small business loan, which alters interest rates and manipulates the economy (allegedly) in her favor.

Because she relies upon forcing young people to pay for her support (via Social Security) in her old age after not planning for her own retirement responsibly.

I do have an interesting view of what is “irresponsible.” As your comment indicates, far too many have come to conflate government assistance with responsibility, thereby altering the very definition of the word.

My great-grandpa, after serving in WWI, married in 1918 and raised seven children in the 1920’s. This should be heaven for Connor – no regulations, gold standard was in place, and government was cut to a minimum. Grandpa made enough money that he bought a house in Richfield and a cabin on Fish Lake.

Then the 1929 stock market crash happened. Grandpa lost the cabin and the house and all the money he had invested in both. He had never missed a payment and still had a good job. But the unregulated bank put all his assets in stocks. The bank went under and all the assets with it. Under the current regulations (the regulation libertarians want to do away with), that can’t happen.

They rented an apartment in Salt Lake and when grandpa finally retired and started collecting Social Security, he moved in with his oldest daughter (my grandma) and died at the age of 81 in 1977.

What, Connor, did he do that was irresponsible? He invested in property, he kept his job his whole life – even during the depression. But the only thing he had when he died was his Social Security check.

As Charles D says, you propose we go back to a government that will not protect the investments of its citizens.

Nobody is forced to give their money to a bank or investor. No legitimate authority exists for the government to “protect the investments of its citizens.” While fraud and violation of contract should certainly be investigated and penalized, if a person invests his money with somebody based on certain terms and conditions, his investment should not be “protected” by the government, for it was his choice to surrender his property/money to a third party to manage on his behalf.

What authority does the government have to enforce contractual obligations between private parties? Why protect somebody who makes a deal of their own free will with somebody who is untrustworthy? It seems pretty irresponsible to rely on the government to enforce parity in private transactions rather than find a way to do it yourself.

“Because she relies on the government to help ensure that she gets “equal” pay, rather than working on her own merits with those who value her work for a reasonable price with which she agrees.”

How exactly does does allowing someone to sue a private company in their private capacity by extending the statute of limitations “relying on the government”? Is anything that involves anything relating to the government “relying” on the government?

PS, you live in fantasy land if you think that everyone can “work on their own merits with those who value their work for a reasonable price.” So what happens if you’re actually Lilly Ledbetter or someone in her shoes, and you think you do work for those who value your work, or you think that everyone is making sacrifices during rough times, or whatever — and then it turns out they were paying your male (or female) counterparts significantly more than you for apparently no justifiable reason? I suppose you just shrug and say, “Oh well, I merited less, apparently!”

But I guess I knew you lived in fantasy land as far back as the post where you, having never served in the military, decided to lecture everyone on the proper role of military cohesion because you read about Greek theories of love once.

@Connor Due to the generally critical nature of this thread, I should clarify that I don’t mean to be confrontational by my previous post, despite pulling some of your previous language into a new context to make a point. I do think that there isn’t an inherent difference between governmental involvement in protecting private investments and ensuring that people fulfill private contractual obligations. Seeing some protections as an irresponsible encroachment of government but leaving contracts essentially disproportionately empowers the people in a position to write contracts, rather than forcing them to find a way to ensure both ends get carried out.

Jeff T sent me this article from John Hasnas, which given your background I’m sure you’ve already seen at some point. It’s a fantastic deconstruction of idea of an impartial “rule of law” which also makes a strong case against having the government involved in enforcing private contracts. His logic is so sound that it puts me in the awkward position of having to either advocate a Rothbardian stateless society or recognize that some governmental protection may be okay.

Well AV, you’re entitled to believe whatever you like but if there are no handouts to take, the freedom to choose not to sell your soul is no longer present and you are less free. When the government chooses to provide a benefit to citizens, whether it is health care insurance or a public school or a resurfacing of the road you drive on, it isn’t doing it for purely charitable reasons or because of some ethical standards or because of some political ideology.

If the government is run by rational individuals, they will make decisions on spending based on the benefit these have for the nation as a whole. Of course the government is not run by rational people, it is run by corporations who are focusing only on their short-term bottom line. Their interest is in cheap labor, subservient labor, low taxes on them, and removal of all regulation that impacts their business. None of these goals is beneficial to the nation as a whole, but neither political party has any intention of saying no to the special interests that fund their campaigns.

Charles- your logic is convoluted. You claim that if there are government-funded handouts, I have freedom because I can reject them. While I do have that particular freedom, I’ve already lost more of my freedom because, in truth, the government provides nothing. The tax-payers do. You are looking at B and C and completely ignoring A.

Not only does the government decide where to spend my hard-earned money, but it takes a chunk out of it first. Where else do we think that a loss of 10-35 percent is a good investment? Let the people keep their money and choose where to put it to best use.

The primary problems we face are a lack of morals and sense of responsibility to not only be self-reliant, but our responsibility to God and voluntarily helping our neighbor. In other words, we fail to understand the proper concept of agency– of choice and consequences– and how it affects what individuals BECOME. God looks on the heart, not on what is visible on the outside. He is the one who offers joy, peace, and fulfillment “without money and without price”. But not without personal effort.

We lack many of our freedoms because the government has stepped in and made our decisions for us. Whose plan was it in the War in Heaven to guarantee security, to avoid consequences, at the expense of freedom to win or lose? As Jesus Christ provides the only security for our spirit, so is he the only Way for life- a life where we learn from our experiences and consequences and have the potential to become more like him.

Remember Alma and Helaman’s responses to wickedness in their land- their idea of “regulation” was to go teach the people what their duties were. This was all done by persuasion, not by force. The Lord’s way is persuasion, the devil’s is force. You keep claiming that it is those who are righteous are forcing their morals on you. Not true. In reality, it is the opposite. My money is taken forcibly from me to fund the things valued by those in government– which has become staggeringly immoral. The answer to the problem is just what George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

In other words, we, as a nation of individuals, have some serious repenting to do before we can expect his blessings, financial or otherwise.

First, I don’t want us to become like Sweden. I have many disagreements with them. It was just a good example of how republicans/libertarians have built up liberal policies into something they are not. And that if Sweden is the worst case scenario of liberalism, then they really have made a mountain out of a molehill.

But to your questions.

The relatively small population of Sweden:

Valid point. Lots of times this makes for a more efficient government because of the small bureaucracy.

They have few immigrants compared to other countries:

I believe this is true for most countries, outside of the US and a few other countries. Most immigrants don’t assimilate well or at all in most countries in the world.

They forced sterilization between the 1930?s and the 1970?s:

Most countries including our own are guilty of stupid things like this.

The main policies of western European countries that I disagree with is that their safety nets are too generous. People can be on welfare for life. I thought Clinton set up a good balance in his welfare reform. It overwhelmingly gets people on welfare to work but is still there for people who are temporarily down on their luck.

believe it or not, I agree with Charles that huge corporations (Ron Paul calls it ‘crony capitalism’) ARE at the heart of the problem and ARE running the government.

But, if they are running the government, if they are, indeed, ‘in bed’ with the government, then how can that same government be “counted on” to provide benefits to poor people, in good faith–without malignant strings attached?

It can’t. The government (whether controlled by corporations, which *I* believe, or by “the people”, which I do not believe) isn’t benevolent.

So, fixing the “system” has to go deeper than that; it has to go deeper than more socialism.

I am not sure it can be done. At this point, I believe it is probably too broken. But I can still believe in the idea of freedom, of personal liberty–

and believe that it isn’t the business of government to take care of ‘the poor’.

And by the way, some whom I love dearly HAVE become dependent upon government welfare, and the result is heart-breaking.

The entire ‘system’ has become corrupt and decadent, and there needs to be a revolution. Hopefully it will be peaceful and won’t be co-opted by the corporations in another form.

I believe that the poor are getting poorer (and growing in number), and the rich are getting richer (and decreasing in number), but social welfare is not the answer–

I wish I could say something that would please everyone. But seeing how most of us are more concerned with our own “feelings” and “thinking” we all fail to see the principles laid out by the Divinve Document: The Constitution. Last time I checked taking money from someone without providing a service or conpensation would be stealing. Telling my government to take money from the same person just to “share” it around isn’t just wrong it’s tryannical. I live in a socialist country run at the moment by a socialist government. I can’t do anything without the bloody country knowing what I’m doing, who I’m doing it with, why I’m doing, etc. etc. I’m punished for owning a weapon in my home by random police “visits” to ensure my weapons are locked up. There are cameras everywhere ensuring that I don’t break the law. I recently “broke” the law and ran a red light. I now owe my tryanncial government $350. (although it’s a bit more than the greeback these days.) And in fact, my rights aren’t even guarranteed within this countries constitution…..it’s ASSUMED…..we all know what that means.

And yet there a few here on this page who rather than putting principle first want to put themselves first. No wonder America is in the predicament it’s in…..it’s own citizens can’t even agree what freedom is!! Disgusting. It seriously makes want to puke. How long? How long will it take the lot of you people to realise that we ourselves are not the enemy……Connor is not the enemy…..unfortunately, the enemy is the Government. The government of our own creation wants to destroy its very creator. How revolting is that? And yet to see people day in and day out……are seemingly fine with that. They say, It’s ok. There aren’t any problems…..all the problems are out “there”……Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. etc. Of course you and I are safe. It’s okay. Meanwhile the devil is laughing to himself enjoying his little victory over the easiness of it all. Wake up America. If you don’t…..who will?

There is a question being raised here that is quite important. Is it possible in this day and age for the government of a large, powerful and wealthy nation to act in a moral way, to voluntarily restrict its own power and authority, to serve the interests of all its people – not just those with money? I doubt it.

Arguing over what action the government ought to take, or what is the proper role of government is pointless if we the people have little or ability to change the government. What we all need to understand is that our government is not socialist, it is crony capitalism on steroids.

We can’t (as pointed out above) solve our problems with socialism because we can’t trust a government that is out of control to do anything right. We also can’t win by driving the government to be smaller and smaller. The first problem with that approach is that the functions cut will not be military or so-called homeland security, or the spying on Americans, because there is too much money to be made in those businesses. Cuts will be made in human services of course, because there’s no money to be made there. Those cuts will further depress the economy for most people, including a lot of you here who love your individual freedom. The second problem is that the power vacuum created by the decrease in government will be absorbed by the most powerful economic players – the ones already in control of the government. They will save a few million on lobbyists and bribes but otherwise will continue business as usual.

The answer, in my opinion, is to dissolve the union. If we were 4 or 5 smaller countries, none of them could afford to try to be an empire and all our expensive overseas military and espionage adventures would have to cease, saving us billions. Each of the countries could be small enough to have functioning and responsive governments and each could determine their own path instead of being deadlocked in battles over political ideology.

both L and Charles have good points, *I* believe. My respect for the constitution, L, is why I ‘believe’ and ‘feel’ what I feel, and I agree with you.
I also agree with Charles that the corporations ARE the biggest problem, and they ARE ‘one’ with the government, behind the government.

Well, the ‘bottom line’ is that *we* have no say or very little say.
Some friends of mine watched personally and reported to me how (very involved politically) they watched their local caucuses be over-run by fraud.

Perhaps the time will come when enough LDS (and other good people) who have hearts will begin to think about Zion–

because *we* have very little power, except over our own immediate choices. And *we* can choose to build Zion in our own little spheres. The pattern is there, in the scriptures.

A division of the U.S.? It would be hijacked, too–

too many powerful and wealthy people have learned how to manipulate and enslave *us*.

We can each retreat from the world into our private spiritual reveries, but that won’t stop our nation’s evolution into a police state, or end the murder and destruction being carried out in our names, or repair our economy to restore good jobs to America. We can withdraw, but is that the responsible course? Unplugging the television, is a good idea but things will continue to get worse whether we know it our not.

Wow, I usually agree with Charles D. Of course I agree with him on the power of big business. But the amount of pessimism is a downer. I’m very optimistic about the future of the United States. Here are some reasons why:

1. Because of fracking and oil shale production, the cost of energy – mainly natural gas – is dropping like a rock. This is making it so cheap that in ten years we will be exporting enough of it to Europe that unless Russia gets its house in order, they will not even be an issue to us. We will undersell the world in energy. This also creates fewer problems in the Middle East and decreases our odds of going to war.

2. Second, related to the energy thing, manufacturing is going to boom in the US for two reasons. First, cheap energy. Second, robotics. Robots are going to do more and more of the work, so what is needed is someone who is creative and can deal with and fix the weird problems that will come up with trying to keep these machines going. No one is better at this than Americans. We lead in creativity. This has already started.

3. We will pull out of Afghanistan in 2014 and for the first time in the 21st century not be in a war.

4. Austrian economics is slowly being rejected and we will go more back to keynesian. This and the booming economy will start making gaps between rich and poor a little smaller. More like the 50s and 60s.

5. Crime is continuing to decline for three reasons. First, ageing population; second, cameras everywhere; and third, people are less and less likely to carry cash.

6. If Obamacare is allowed to go through, medical costs should start declining. Switzerland is doing the same program and pays about 30% less than us.

Charles, you don’t understand what I said. The television is an instrument of brainwashing–it’s not a trusted source of real news. There is way too much censorship.

Pessimism, Tron? No, indeed. I am very optomistic, but not about the health of a nation that has not incurred the pleasure of God. The U.S. is located in a land of promise, so it has more to answer for than Europe. It will be held more accountable; hence–destruction awaits, but the righteous will be spared. Are you reading your Book of Mormon? By righteous, I don’t mean people with a label: LDS, Christian, Bhuddist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew–

I mean righteous, as in righteous–“by their fruits . . .”

1. Hopeful, but not realistic; you must not believe in the existence of “evil and conspiring men”–Are you reading the Book of Mormon?

2. Hopeful, but not realistic. Where are you getting your news? Pollution is rampant, and rates of chemical-originated disease are way up.

3. American military bases fill the world, and there are constant rumors of war against Iran.

4. Austrian economics has never been applied–

5. Crime? Declining? Where do you get your news? Also, do you mind living in a police state? You must not mind being watched–

6. No again. No freedom for those who don’t want to participate in conventional medicine, among other things. In *my* community there are 50-100 M.D.s for every natural physician (duly licensed, one less year of education than M.D.s, because they don’t need the hospital experience); these people are not covered by insurance, and they are exhausted fixing the mistakes of M.D.s–it’s very hard to get in to see them, in fact–
many more are needed in the community–
This doesn’t included chiropractors–
Have you read any of the studies by educated professionals about the high levels of radiation in the atmosphere/environment since Fukushima? M.D.s don’t know how to fix that and many other things. Oh well–
and costs for medical school have skyrocketed to the point where many physicians are quitting, finding other careers (I know this firsthand, by the way, someone very close to my family), and a medical student just getting out of medical school may or may not be able to pay back his/her loan (TOO costly)–especially if Obamacare does go through–

Have you read the scripture about how we are commanded to pray for Jesus’ return? The environment is horrifically polluted; I am not sure this planet can sustain life without His return; people aren’t accomplishing it alone and never will–not with huge corporations stopping every good effort.

I guess there are more than one or two opinions–and my news sources must be vastly different from yours. May I ask if you watch the mainstream media? Well, if you do, that explains it–

Outside, I totally agree with you about Monsanto. So who or what is going to stop them? Sounds like you are counting on Jesus’ return to solve the world’s problems. Lots of Christians throughout the ages have relied on that solution, but so far…

Religious belief can drive people inward to focus only on themselves and their spiritual life, or it can focus them on a community of those who believe as they do, and it some cases it can focus them on making the world a better place for everyone. If people with strong moral convictions about what is right and wrong about the world, simply retreat into personal or communal spirituality, their energy and passion is not available to make real change in the world. Engaging with the world, however frustrating and dangerous that may be, is the only way to work for change.

1. Evil and conspiring men? In the context of oil/energy supplies, these evil and conspiring men are monopolies and oligopolies, right? Our defense against them is anti-trust laws, which both libertarians and republicans are opposed to. Why would you worry about the conspiracy of evil men while supporting a candidate that only believes government can do conspiracies?

Also, are you saying natural gas prices haven’t come down? It was almost up to $14 per MMBtu in 2008 and is now down to about $2.50. Europe is currently paying $23 and Japan is paying $16.

2. First, I gave you a Wall Street Journal link. I’ll give you one for a Stratfor report, too. Besides, we’re talking about natural gas, which is a lower polluter. And again, only democrats support the EPA so why complain about pollution if you’re voting for someone who will do nothing about it?

6. I’m sorry, but most of my family’s visit to the doctor require pain killers, antibiotics, and someone who is good with a knife. (Ingrown toenails, strep throat, C-section.) Unless there is a magic herb that can do C-sections.

And I stand by my Obamacare prediction. If I’m wrong, I fully expect this forum to mock me. That means if Obamacare goes in effect and prices go up, not down. Connor should mock me personally. It would only be fair – I’ve mocked him about economics.

TRON, we obviously don’t speak the same language. At all. I find your responses as strange.

I do know where you are coming from; I used to believe a lot of that. I was a devoted WSJ reader once. I’ve had a paradigm shift.

And, to be fair, if your life wasn’t endangered by a medical practitioner, you wouldn’t understand. And, no, there wasn’t an M.D. who could ‘fix’ it.
Medically, you are more mainstream. Well, I would say you are more mainstream in most of your responses.

Tron,
I used to really believe in Obama care until I heard a story on the radio that stated it was actually a sort of bailout for the insurance industry, like for banks. I would have also liked to have been able to use the funds for care as I saw fit, for example ‘a magic herb that can do C-sections’. Thats a rather misplaced understanding of what an herb or formula could do or can’t.

I really believe in appropriate use of herbs, supplements, the natural healing ability of the body itself when appropriate. Having a good healthcare provider that knows the powers and limitations of western medicine and alternatives is essential. I am convienced that they will totally integrate at some point in the future, if people become more educated and open to each. I only see obamacare as slowing the merger and ‘marriage’ between the two.

We had our first son at home and it cost about $3,000 for the midwife to be there and provide all the prenatal care.

Next time, the plan is to trim down dramatically on the prenatal care, only getting what is absolutely necessary, and no midwife, only me and my wife, with a midwife and a Dr on call for an emergency. Some friends of mine just did this and it was very successful.

When we take the govt out of the picture other than to protect our god given rights from being infringed on by others, other institutions fill their proper roles in caring for the needs of the “people”.

People who do not take responsibility for their actions and expect everybody else to make up the difference for their “bad decisions” and their unrighteous wants need to be educated.

Obamacare, or as I prefer to call it, Romnobamacare is clearly not going to promote alternative medicine, since it is designed to bail out insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, not actually improve the health of Americans.

Our health system is based on an illness model. In a profit-driven system like ours, there is relatively little money to be made in keeping people healthy. We won’t find our corporate-run health system promoting local organic food, or herbal remedies or home births, and certainly it won’t be warning us about the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup or the tons of antibiotics and insecticides and weed killers that go into our food and are known carcinogens. No, all those things are profit producing products of our major corporations and the government they run isn’t going to warn us about any of those things or offer any alternatives.

Wow, thanks another fantastic post. Our society is becoming so dependent on the goverment stealing the wealth of those who are producing to buy the votes of those that are not. I pray that we will wake up soon and realize that when we endevour to give govt rights that we as individuals don’t have, “The creature exceeds the creator and becomes master”

When my daughter was born she came out blue. It took five nurses and three doctors to keep my wife and daughter alive. The five nurses were trading off putting three tubes down my daughters throat one at a time pulling out fluid from her lungs. While three doctors were frantically putting my wife back together. In 30 seconds my daughter’s face went from blue to pink. In one minute she was on oxygen. In two minutes her feet were pink. And in five minutes she was breathing normal air on her own. If I did that at home with or without a midwife my wife and daughter would be dead. Without oxygen brain damage sets in in four minutes and death in five. I can’t think of anything stupider than wasting those minutes either driving to the hospital or waiting for paramedics.

TRON, you are so full of crap. What gives the govt the right to steal from its citizens to support other citizens? I have no problem helping or giving to help people BUT my govt has proven time and time again that they’re NOT to to be trusted. Mandating giving welfare checks to people doesn’t help them, it makes them dependent. Pray for CF? pray for yrself. Jesus gave and wanted otehrs to give, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. Govt taking money “to give to other people” is a farce. We wouldn’t have half the scientific advancements we’ve had other the last 50 years if govt had been left in charge of it. The ONLY thing the govt can be counted on is to break something that never needed fixing to begin with. I haven’t even addressed the Fraud-in-Chief’s multiple unConstitutional laws and EO’s, 5 TRILLION dollars hes added to the debt in 3.5 years, and the multiple wars he vowed to end but its clear he LIED. Only one man can save this country from itself, and thats RON PAUL. But because he wants to end the gravy train in Washington, BOTH parties are against him. That means hes doing something RIGHT.

Vic, you seem to have a few facts wrong.
1. Jesus told his followers to Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s – in other words pay your taxes. There was no free will involved in that then or now.
2. Most of the major scientific advancements we have would not have been possible WITHOUT government support – the Internet, the space program, most of our drugs, etc. In some cases the government ran those programs for many years.
3. While you are right about the fraud of our government, we can’t solve it by continuing its close relationships with the corporations who feed at the public trough. Examine Ron Paul’s economic program and you’ll see he too isn’t really tackling the big problems of federal spending, only those that don’t have a strong constituency.

I’d love to see Ron Paul get the nomination, but it isn’t going to happen. I don’t support his views on many issues, but I’d love to see him debate his foreign policy, monetary policy and economic policy views with President Bait-and-Switch Obama. That would be a riot.

Faith is the seed of preparation. My son is five years old, has never been in a hospital, has never had a needle puncture his skin, is uncircumcised, has never missed a day of scripture study, prays more intimately and with greater faith than any friend that I have, and he has the confidence of Jesus of Nazareth Himself.

The staggering number of physical disabilities in society today are caused by the hospitals, the drug companies, Mansanto and the other food companies that control the production and distribution of food in our country.

Yes, there has always been the chance of being exposed to some external event that caused birth defects that lead to physical disabilities, but they used to be nearly non-existent. Now it is an epidemic.

Tron, you just need to slow your mind down and stop replying with such emotionalism. Everything is going to be okay. Have some faith!

About the Author

Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a public policy think tank in Utah. He is the author of several books along with hundreds of columns and articles championing individual liberty. Connor's work has been publicly praised by national figures such as Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, and many others.

A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!

What do history's most notorious despots have in common with many of the flag-waving, patriotic politicians of our day? Both groups rise to power through the exploitation of fear, which has become a societal plague. There have been widespread casualties. We need an antidote. Feardom offers its readers a much-needed immunization.

History abounds with examples of government officials making decisions, well-intentioned or otherwise, that harm others. Unfortunately, these unintended consequences are never anticipated, and rarely considered once they occur. As the Tuttle Twins find in their latest adventure, central planning can ruin people’s lives.

The oldest economic battle in history repeats itself in the fourth Tuttle Twins book. Ethan and Emily witness this battle firsthand as they help their food truck friends win public support to overturn the protectionist laws that shut them down.

The third installment in the Tuttle Twins series finds Ethan and Emily confronting a scary creature that somehow controls money and markets. Your children will learn about money, inflation, banking, and other important monetary concepts in an exciting story, beautifully illustrated.

In their second adventure, Ethan and Emily Tuttle go on a field trip to a fun factory where they learn how something as simple as a pencil is in fact a miracle—and one that nobody knows how to make! Your children will learn about the free market, why division of labor makes our lives better, and how spontaneous order is the key to human progress and happiness!

Help your children learn about the proper role of government with this engaging book full of detailed, colorful illustrations! Ethan and Emily Tuttle learn from their wise neighbor Fred about the law, what our rights are and why we have them, and how we should voluntarily help those in need!

A fundamental aspect of the good news of the gospel is the message of liberty. As President Joseph F. Smith said, “The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of freedom; the gospel of the Son of God is the gospel of liberty.” Men of God, both ancient and modern, have spoken on this issue repeatedly. This book analyzes what liberty is and how it applies to government.

Liberty is a fundamental and eternal principle, but it cannot exist without its counterpart—personal responsibility. From self-defense and self-reliance, to faith, family, and financial freedom, this book pinpoints precise actions needed from each of us if liberty is to successfully be preserved.

This book is a compilation of essays written over the years, organized topically. At 610 pages, it's great for reference material if you're debating something with a friend and want to look up some arguments that you can use to support your pro-liberty positions.

Reviews

"An amazing book"—Ron Paul on Latter-day Liberty

"Clear, compelling, full of faith"—Judge Andrew Napolitano on Latter-day Responsibility

"Sophisticated and compelling"—Tom Woods on Feardom

Significant discounts available for bulk orders of 20 or more. Contact me for information.